As I continue to work in the video/analog industry, I've noted that there are a lot of ideas that are brilliant and there are a lot of ideas that are dumb (relatively speaking).
I say such a bold statement about ideas because ideas don't make a game. It's the implementation of that idea that makes the game. Let me give a few examples:
-Codenames is a party game that's got a lot of strategy and excels in its simplicity. The marketing behind this game was great and the demand is high. This is an example of a brilliant idea implemented brilliantly.
-CandyLand is arguably one of the most popular games of all time. While the gameplay is just...horrible, the sales of this game are just...astronomical. It's considered one of the classic board games up there with Monopoly and Checkers.
-Psychonauts is a video game that was critically reviewed and was revolutionary in its ideas. But bad marketing and planning made this game fail in sales and is only alive among niche audiences.
-Bad games with bad implementations...are everywhere. Usually they reside at the bottom of the failed Kickstarter campaigns.
In order to create games that others will play, we have to think less about the idea itself and concentrate more on working the idea. While a great idea can drive a game, if a great idea isn't implemented properly, then the idea is worthless. Many bad ideas are implemented and are making money, only frustrating our own "brilliant" idea that hasn't been implemented.
But shouldn't the hook be important to a game? Absolutely. But my point is that people hold onto an idea and think so highly of their idea that they believe the idea will push the work. It doesn't and it shouldn't. YOU push the idea, the idea is just a thought. The truth is that same amount of work that makes a bad game successful is THE SAME amount of work that makes a good game successful. The idea may help a game be more successful, but many just fail to see that work is a critical part of the equation.
Does this mean I'm ignoring the idea? Not at all. Have you heard, "I have this great idea that will blow away every other game out there!" (you may have even said this). Many times the idea just goes nowhere because the person that's saying the idea isn't planning on doing the work FOR the idea. That's the difference.
My point is that the work is the key. Thomas Edison said, "Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration." I believe my game is brilliant, but I've been working my butt off to get it out there and I think it's starting to pay off. As you can read from previous blog posts, many places I go to fail to get the results I want. I believe in my product, but I know I have to work for it.
I know I have a long way to go. We all do.
Good luck everyone.
Comments
I have a game that is
I have a game that is centered around a new mechanic, a gimmicky one at that. I have been working on it for several years and am on Version 5.0 now. The reason it's taking so long is i added in all these things that didn't need to be in the game. My playtesters would say "i like this cool mechanic but the game is too long and confusing.". It took me awhile to hear what they were saying which is loose the rest of the stuff we like your gimmick. I finally did and paired the game down to its core. I did the first test of V5.0 last Saturday and the game is working great although it still needs balancing.
I'm not 100% in agreement - because...
I think it's too general a statement to make. Ideas are GOOD if you follow through with proper execution. For example, I have multiple game ideas. Each concept is different from the others but they are only ideas for games, not games themselves.
And the reason I say "ideas" is because I have not written rules for those games. But each of those ideas has a "hook", something different from other games... Again this might be a general statement also. What I mean is that by transforming those ideas into something physical, which may require a small or large amount of *tweaking*, might make for an interesting game.
So the ideas are not worthless - it's a question about how to go about an take the time to implement them. And I'm very SLOW when it comes to making games. "Tradewars - Homeworld" has been in development for 30+ months. I see others making games in LESS than half that time, like less than 12 months. I don't believe I could ever go at that speed. I contacted reviewers in October and am now only starting to get questions regarding the game. So about 2 months just for reviewers to get themselves involved in the game itself... I also figure it's going to take 2 more months before all the reviewers chime in with their reviews.
Back to the OP, I think IDEAs are GOOD - but you need to transform them into something physical and that's what proper execution is all about...
Happy designing all!
The last 10% of a game
Also I wanted to add that perhaps the most difficult task is completing the last 10% of a game... Kinda making the game "perfect". It seems like there is always some rules that need more testing, exceptions that seem out of place, just things that need to be more final.
That's the toughest part of the game. I sent out 9 game copies to Reviewers and we still have not finalized one of the scenarios (Solitary). We're getting there - I think we may have found a solution.
But FORCING yourself to trim as much "fat" from a game is also part of the process when trying to make your game real. You either have a publisher transform a game idea or you do it yourself via a Kickstarter. In both situations, you're trying to "optimize" the game and cut as many corners as you can to save money, lower costs, reduce production time, etc.
Not really in agreement...
And the reason I say "ideas" is because I have not written rules for those games. But each of those ideas has a "hook", something different from other games... Again this might be a general statement also. What I mean is that by transforming those ideas into something physical, which may require a small or large amount of *tweaking*, might make for an interesting game.
So the ideas are not worthless - it's a question about how to go about an take the time to implement them. And I'm very SLOW when it comes to making games. "Tradewars - Homeworld" has been in development for 30+ months. I see others making games in LESS than half that time, like less than 12 months. I don't believe I could ever go at that speed. I contacted reviewers in October and am now only starting to get questions regarding the game. So about 2 months just for reviewers to get themselves involved in the game itself... I also figure it's going to take 2 more months before all the reviewers chime in with their reviews.
Back to the OP, I think IDEAs are GOOD - but you need to transform them into something physical and that's what proper execution is all about...
Happy designing all!
We have the same thought patterns, but we're coming to different conclusions. You're saying the idea isn't totally worthless...they can be worth something later. I'm saying that the idea is worthless UNTIL it's turned into something later. Either way, our conclusion is the same, the interpretation at stage 3 is the differing factor.
I just don't think people understand how much "execution" they need to do in order to make their idea a reality.
An idea can stay an idea and that's cool, but an idea is nothing unless it's implemented. It's the combination of idea and work that makes something. I'm only addressing the people that think the idea is the ONLY thing and expect it to drive the work.
Not all ideas are brilliant
True - it's misleading. It takes effort and effort requires time. Like I said it takes me years to design "A GAME". Quest Adventure Cards(tm) took me like 18 months also. I really don't understand how people design games in less than 12 months.
My thoughts are:
A> Those games aren't very good.
B> Those games are not very thematic.
C> Overall those games are simpler (as a whole)
For example in "Tradewars - Homeworld", it took a bunch of playtests before we re-designed some of the "core" roles to the game. And those changes were pretty drastic. I'll have to admit that at first I was hesitant. Not because I did not feel like the feedback was valuable, I just was unsure about how to move forwards with the refinements.
I stuck to the playtesters' advice and NOW I am totally pleased at how more appropriate the roles are for the game. Okay so maybe the Chancellor role is still a little vague - it's meta game... We'll re-tool that role with the 2nd Expansion: Code Red.
I'm still not finished the First Edition of the game - but I have STRONG ideas for several Expansions. Each one of these "Expansion IDEAS" is potential for growing the brand. They're not finalized - but they add to the overall thought process... Keeps me thinking about "this game", not another one.
Amazingly feedback from the Florida playtest came in, maybe 4 months afterwards - and it actually helped. One of the suggestion was using credits (quickSilver) to pay for starships. Okay so the idea would not work for the current game - BUT it would work for my Privateer scenario in the 1st Expansion. Why? Because Space Pirates need to PAY in order to HIRE more pirates to attack the other players. And why is this GREAT (Thanks to the Florida team!)? Because it's a NATURAL way to establish down-time for all players to build up their forces...
So we're still thinking up new ideas and that's great - because some of those will stick and others will not!
Maybe...
Maybe I'm just complaining. When I hear people try and tell me they have this great idea in their heads that will make people void their bladders...they expect me to do the work for them.
Like...hey, I got my own game I'm working on.
Actually, I was talking with a Game Development Manager at Fantasy Flight at GenCon and he mentioned that an 8 month development time (the time I took to make Conquest At Kismet) was actually long...so the industry just does it faster.
Is that supposed to mean better quality?!?!
Do you know what Manager's DO BEST??? They BULLSHIT A LOT... I'm happy that the company I work for gives control to their developers because if I had to follow some Manager's Levels of Effort (LOEs) or Work Estimates, I would probably shoot myself.
And I know - because I have worked for some places like that (in the past).
I'm happy for my 9/5er.
And seriously it's GenCon, everyone is BSing their game is the Best game of the GenCon show! I bet you the TOP 5 most ranked games are all saying their game was #1...
I'd take it with a GRAIN OF SALT. Also they work with TEAMS. They have playtesters IN-HOUSE. They don't need to mail things around the USA in order to get some group in Boston or Philadelphia to play test the game a few times...
So yeah - they might do it a little bit faster. Does it really matter in the end? NO. Sales matter... Just because you did in 3 months quicker doesn't mean you designed a better game! Right?!
Note: What I meant to say, don't be hard on yourself because you took more time than some publisher. Yeah, even FFG. I could tell you Wizards Of The Coast are also designing a Magic: The Board Game - and what I have seen sucks... So not all companies pump out the "miracle" A-HA product.
Update: Also because they have SALARIES to PAY, it makes a difference to the BOTTOM LINE if THEY make the game FASTER! But for Indie designs, nope. If they crank out 2 games a year (every 6 months) well that pays for all the salaries and overhead that they have (offices, secretaries, executives, etc.) That's usually a LOT OF MONEY. You (at your computer desk) = cheap, low costing investment. Plus if you are like me, you do it FREE! :P
I sense...
I sense a little hostility in your last post, questccg. I'm very aware of the bottom line, I worked in the video game industry from 2003 to 2009, I've worked at a board game studio and I teach game design. It's what I teach to my students.
Look, you can't generalize all managers because your experience says otherwise. You had mentioned it takes more than 12 months because you were "slow". I merely mentioned that I took 8, I don't see why mentioning making a game in less time makes a difference on the quality of the game. It doesn't sway my opinion of FFG games...I mean, they are a game company. Personally, I've seen games developed in a few weeks, I've seen games developed in a few months. But you're right, it's all about the sales. Hopefully the game is quality enough to stay selling.
That particular manager actually gave me the polish I needed to make the game shine (it was primarily text corrections to make my game communicate with consistency). His contribution only helped me, so I sensed no reason why he'd do or think otherwise. Believe it or not, there are nice people out there.
I'm actually not hard on myself because I took longer...in fact, I'm pretty happy with the development time of my game. I designed it from scratch...considering basic things like color and ease of use while having depth of play.
In fact, I'm pretty proud of where my game is now. I've had the benefit of being in the company of other game designers (digital and analog) so I believe my game is doing well because of the help I got.
Anyways, I appreciate your opinion. It's good to hear different perspectives on the same subject.
Ideas = One Component
I don't see ideas worthless at all, ever. I see them as critical components to the process of making games that play and sell well. There are a lot of them out there, and that's where the notion of being worthless comes from.
You two have already discussed a lot about testing, measuring, and critically-examining ideas so I'll spare the reiteration. But being able to use one's critical thinking skills to select one realistic, workable idea from among the scores of ideas possible to pursue is a challenge.
Secondly, I strongly agree with the notion that game design in general requires a tremendous amount of effort. Of course, the more resources - time, money, and staffing - one can invest in maturing an idea can make a huge difference in the length of a development cycle. If you're in a company that spends all its time and other resources in publishing games, then yeah you're gonna be a lot more productive than someone in their basement or kitchen table, tinkering away at their own game designs between day jobs and feeding the kids or whatever.
I think someone who doesn't work in the industry can be completely okay with a game that takes years to have published. It's a matter of allocating the resources you have available compared to the depth and scope of what you want to create: much like any other field.
I agree that ideas are
I agree that ideas are worthless. They are fertilizer for any project, what you grow something worthwhile out of. If the adage that ideas are a dime a dozen holds true then anyone with even a modicum of creativity should be earning no less than $20 an hour in the ideas department at their local Imaginatorium.
The illusion that an idea is worth much of anything is maintained by people who profit from 'bringing ideas to life,' which is to say, print on demand companies, writing coaches, editors, patent lawyers, and the like. Most editors I know of will happily take their 5 cents/word twice over editing and re-editing manuscripts with zero potential, fostering the author's hope in a stillborn idea. Conversely, my wife was looking into ghostwriting opportunities, and it cracked us up how many people think $50 will get their great idea turned into a 100k word novel. They had the idea, right? So, now all that's left is the actual work.
As a specialist in lean manufacturing, my father's job was to step in and fire the sort of managers that you are talking about. Incompetent management is one symptom of a dysfunctional work environment, which carries a tremendous cost in lost production. There are plenty of good managers who set realistic goals for their departments.